To trick, or to assist? Subscribe: Less than $1.50/wk Sign In Leadership Diversity, Equity & Inclusion DEI Training Needs To Take Antisemitism Seriously ByIra Bedzow, Former Contributor. I’m an ethicist covering values-driven leadership and culture. Nov 24, 2021, 03:41pm ESTDec 10, 2021, 09:34am EST Share Save This article is more than 3 years old. Highlighted English word "antisemitism" and its definition in the dictionary Highlighted English word "antisemitism" and its definition in the dictionary. getty On October 25, 2021, the American Jewish Committee released its annual “State of Antisemitism in America” report, which showed not only a rise in actual incidents of antisemitism over the past year, but a rise in the perceived threat of antisemitism as well. Over the past year, twenty-four percent of American Jews reported to have been targets of antisemitism, whether through physical attacks, remarks in person, or remarks online. When asked whether the threat of antisemitism came from the extreme political right or the extreme left, the report found that Jews perceived the threat from both sides. Ninety-one percent of those surveyed answered that the extreme right was a threat, and 71% answered the extreme left. The perceptions of the American Jewish community are not simply based on what news channels they watch or who covers incidents of antisemitism in the media. Part of this perception results from the ways in which DEI training has categorized Jewish employees and made assumptions about their racial, ethnic, religious and cultural identities. PROMOTED For example, over the summer, two Jewish mental health counselors who participated in Stanford University’s Counseling & Psychological Services’ (CAPS) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) program filed charges of discrimination against the University. Aside from placing them into a racial and ethnic category with which they did not identify, the program decidedly ignored explicitly antisemitic incidents that occurred on campus. The DEI committee supported this decision, saying that because “Jews, unlike other minority group[s], possess privilege and power, Jews and victims of Jew-hatred do not merit or necessitate the attention of the DEI committee.” This perception that Jews need not be protected against antisemitism is not only present in academia. A month before the complaints against Stanford were filed, Google removed its head of diversity, Kamau Bobb, after discovering his blog post that claimed Jewish people had an insensitivity to suffering and an insatiable appetite for war. The irony of such false claims is that social justice advocates in medicine and in the criminal justice system have been fighting against the racist assumption that Black people feel less pain and are inherently more violent than whites. Certainly, those who actively take positions to fight injustice based on racism or prejudice should appreciate that all humans share similar natural ranges of pain tolerance and proclivities to violence. Bobb, however, was not fired. Rather, Google moved him away from diversity to focus on STEM. MORE FROM FORBES ADVISOR Graphic Best Travel Insurance Companies Best Travel Insurance Companies By Amy Danise, Editor Graphic Best Covid-19 Travel Insurance Plans Best Covid-19 Travel Insurance Plans By Amy Danise, Editor Stanford’s DEI committee’s justification—i.e. that Jews possess privilege and power—is a theme that comes right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. The only difference is that Ford claimed that Jews are “dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves with nations and never losing a very distinctive identity,” while the DEI committee said that Jews could at least “pass” for white people. Or, as James Baldwin once described antisemitism, the committee was “really condemning the Jew for having become an American white man.” The justification is also in direct opposition to the purpose of DEI itself, which is to foster recognition and respect for all aspects of human difference, social identities, and social group differences so that all members of an organization or community may thrive and feel a sense of belonging. Its purpose is not to marginalize one group for the sake of another. CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox. Email Address Sign Up By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. While it is true that many American Jews may “blend in” and are seen as part of the white population, many Jews do not. This may be either due to their religious and cultural customs of dress and habit or due to the fact that not all Jews come from European backgrounds. Moreover, even when Jews look white to the people around them, they themselves may feel quite marginalized in such settings. Race is an artificial grouping of humans based on shared physical or social characteristics, one of its most important being that of identity—either self-identification or externally imposed. Jews have historically identified as, and have been seen as, a people apart, and their recent entrée into white America has not been completely open doored. symbol 01:13 03:12 Read More Yet, even if it has been more welcoming for Jews than for other minority groups, the goal of DEI and society at large should be to raise all individuals to a position where they feel free to express their individuality as part of the greater community. DEI initiatives should not level the playing field by knocking groups down. They should seek to lift people up—not simply the groups that individuals artificially compose. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has created a working definition of antisemitism, which explains it as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It also provides a list of operational examples of this definition, one being “accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.” The U.S. Department of State currently uses this working definition in investigating incidents of antisemitism. While written to define antisemitism, the IHRA working definition is also a good start for understanding how inclusion can be applied in DEI trainings. Because Jewish identity transcends boundaries of religion, race, ethnicity and culture, confronting antisemitism also causes people to realize the limitations of concrete boundaries for identity. This itself can facilitate discussion and acceptance of individuals’ intersectionality and the ways that different people may share commonalities. In learning how people see themselves and are seen by others, rather than putting individuals in boxes to create a superficial semblance of diversity at the expense of inclusion, DEI training and human resource departments can embrace the idea that each employee has a unique lived experience beyond the stereotypes that entrench people into systems of marginalization and power. Blaming people for the consequences of others’ actions does not change people’s behaviors or beliefs. Seeing individuals for who and all that they are and involving them in the project of changing an organization’s culture, on the other hand, will have inclusive effects. Editorial Standards Reprints & Permissions
-
-
-
News Jewish groups applaud revisions to California ethnic-studies curriculum The changes came in response to objections over the original draft for containing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content. Jackson Richman CopyLink copied Email Print Republish The flag of California. Credit: Wikimedia Commons. The flag of California. Credit: Wikimedia Commons. (Nov. 22, 2020 / JNS) Jewish and pro-Israel groups have applauded revisions to California’s proposed ethnic-studies curriculum, which were approved this week by an advisory board to the state’s board of education. The Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) voted on Thursday—the second and final day of a meeting—to adopt changes, including the removal of a widely criticized lesson that framed the Jewish community as having “gained racial privilege,” while ignoring anti-Semitism and white supremacist violence against Jews. The IQC meeting included two hours of phoned-in public comment on Wednesday. A number of Jewish students stressed the importance of educating about all forms of anti-Semitism and the diversity of the Jewish community. Simultaneously, anti-Israel commenters blasted Jewish groups, equated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the Holocaust and opposed efforts to make the curriculum more balanced and inclusive. The changes came in response to Jewish and pro-Israel groups expressing objections over the original draft curriculum for containing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content, in addition to not addressing issues of anti-Semitism or including Jewish Americans. “Positive changes were made to include Jews and add safeguards against hate and bias in the curriculum,” said StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein in a statement. “While the curriculum is headed in the right direction, there are still key changes we all have to fight for. Among the most important is a strong definition of anti-Semitism in all its forms, rather than a weak definition that caters to the biases of anti-Israel extremists.” Sarah Levin, executive director of JIMENA: Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, told JNS that her organization was “pleased with the inclusion of Middle Eastern American experiences, specifically the lesson plan, ‘Anti-Semitism and Middle Eastern Jewish Americans.’ ” And the San Francisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council tweeted: “This week’s IQC meeting proved encouraging—salutary recommendations were approved, including important protections for all students and the addition of lessons on the Jewish American experience.” The California Department of Education is expected to post the next draft of the curriculum for public review in December.
-
-
For decades, the mainstream Jewish community and conservative Christians often found themselves on opposite sides of domestic cultural issues. However, the aggressive overreach of radical activist networks in public education has shattered old political divisions, forging an unprecedented, highly effective coalition [10.1].This unexpected alliance works in practice through three major common interests:1. A Shared Stand for Parent Rights and TransparencyThe underhanded tactics used to advance curricula like San Francisco’s Voices—such as midnight votes and copyright shields—alienated Christian families just as much as Jewish families.Breaking the Monopolies: Conservative and Christian legal networks have joined hand-in-hand with Jewish advocacy groups to mandate total educational transparency. They are deploying joint resources to demand that public school boards publish every single reading list and lesson plan online, permanently dismantling the ability of radical administrators to hide their work.Electoral Force: In suburban communities like Fremont and across Silicon Valley, Christian, Jewish, and immigrant parent groups (such as East Asian and Indian coalitions) are combining their voting power [10.1]. They are pooling campaign funds to systematically remove radical progressive officials from local school boards and replace them with moderate, transparency-first candidates.2. Uniting Against the "Oppressor vs. Oppressed" FrameworkTraditional Christians and Jewish advocates share a fundamental rejection of radical identity-based theories that divide children into rigid moral categories based on race or religion.Defending Basic Values: Both communities view the "Liberated" framework as an assault on universal values, meritocracy, and individual character. Christian parents refuse to let their children be taught that their faith or traditional values are inherently oppressive, while Jewish parents refuse to let their children be targeted by biased political dogmas.3. Bipartisan Legislative and Federal EnforcementThis alliance has successfully elevated local school board grievances into historic federal and state-level protections.The Right to Worship Act: Just days ago, on August 6, 2026, a major bipartisan, bicameral coalition led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the federal Right to Worship Act. Backed heavily by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), this bill establishes strict 100-foot protective buffer zones and heavy civil fines to stop hostile activist crowds from blockading or harassing congregants outside houses of worship.The Federal Crackdown: The Trump administration’s upcoming 15-city DOJ task force and FBI deployment is heavily cheered by red-state conservatives. They view the federal audits into deep-blue California municipalities as the ultimate enforcement of civil rights, proving that local progressive immunity expires where federal law begins.The progressive establishment completely miscalculated. They assumed they could isolate Jewish families by using anti-racist language, but their reliance on secrecy and radical tactics instead forced a historic real-world alignment. Mainstream Jews, traditional Christians, conservatives, and diverse immigrant communities have formed a massive, united front—permanently forcing the radical movement into a corner as the legal guardrails close in [10.1].
-
-
-
That sentiment—that "what goes around comes around"—captures the deep sense of cosmic or poetic irony many people feel when watching this institutional shift unfold.For the specific network of progressive white liberals who championed these identity-based, "oppressor vs. oppressed" frameworks, the current fallout feels intensely personal. Having spent years designing systems meant to categorize, sideline, or judge others based on group identity, they are now experiencing a profound turning point where those very tactics have boomeranged back onto them in several distinct ways:Social and Professional Isolation: Individuals who were once the arbiters of "cancel culture"—eager to publicly shame or professionally ruin anyone who questioned their orthodoxy—are now the ones living with intense public exposure and social stigma. Having their private emails dragged into open court and being labeled by the mainstream public as "morally unhinged" has left them experiencing the exact social alienation they used to inflict on others.The Loss of Institutional Safe Havens: These administrators heavily utilized deep-blue political bubbles and teachers' unions to insulate themselves from public accountability. Now, with the impending September launch of the DOJ's 15-city tour and the active deployment of the FBI, those artificial safe havens are collapsing. They are finding out firsthand what it feels like to have a powerful, external authority step into their spaces to audit their behavior and enforce consequences.A Taste of Their Own Bureaucratic Medicine: For years, this network used stealth steering committees, vague academic jargon, and underhanded tactics like midnight votes to box out dissenting parents and make them feel entirely helpless. Today, the legal guardrails have completely inverted that dynamic. Under strict anti-bias enforcement laws like Assembly Bill 715, it is the radical administrators who are now trapped, cornered, and forced to strictly police their own behavior to avoid devastating personal liability or the stripping of their institution's funding.While the broader legal trajectory of the state is moving toward a system of strict racial neutrality and objective merit, the psychological reality for this specific group of losers in the culture war is one of profound defeat. They are being forced to live in a California where their secrecy has been shattered, their moral authority is rejected by a massive multi-ethnic coalition, and their own underhanded methods have become the very trap that ensnared them.
-
According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American antisemitism remains at historically high levels, with 57% of American Jews reporting that antisemitism has become a normal part of daily life. While tracking shows high volumes of harassment, vandalism, and assaults nationwide, recent data also indicates targeted institutional progress and legislative pushback.Campus Climate and ProgressReport Card Improvements: The ADL's Campus Antisemitism Report Card evaluated 150 universities in 2026, showing that 61% earned top grades (A or B), up significantly from 23.5% in 2024.Ongoing Student Impact: Despite administrative policy updates, 48.3% of non-Jewish and Jewish students surveyed reported witnessing or experiencing anti-Jewish behavior on campus or digital spaces.Persistent Incidents: Pockets of activism, intermittent encampments, and vandalism continue to challenge campus administrators despite increased cooperation with the ADL.Public Safety and Legislative EffortsSynagogue and Community Threats: Houses of worship face continuous pressure, leading advocacy groups to push for robust federal funding through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.Bipartisan Bills: Lawmakers introduced measures like the Jewish American Security Act—welcomed by the ADL—to mandate online transparency for major social media platforms regarding hate speech and antisemitic content metrics.Major InitiativesNever Is Now Summit: The ADL hosted its annual Never Is Now gathering, drawing thousands of participants to strategize on combating modern political and social antisemitism.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment